N RAMALINGAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 6th respondent in his proceedings No.45W/C 2101/1/2/P1 dated 16.3.1997 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Aircraftsman with all the consequential benefits. 2. Today, when the above matter has been taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, no representation has been offered on the part of the respondents. Hence, this Court is left with no option but to pass orders after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the materials placed on record. 3. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it comes to be known that the petitioner is an Aircraftsman in the Air Force. He submits that usually Aircraftsmen would be sponsored for the Conversion Course, which is meant for Aircraftsmen to become Group I Aircraftsmen, within a year or two, but in his case since he was not sponsored even after four years, he made a representation and at last he was sponsored for the said Course only in January, 1993 and since in the Air Force, nobody should raise their finger or voice however genuine their grievances may be and since he made a representation that too orally, it has irked the authorities particularly the Commanding Officer thus leading to the Commanding Officer developing enmity against him and framing charges and inflicting punishments and making adverse entries in the Service Register. 4. THE petitioner would further submit that the Rules enable the authorities to discharge a person from service on receiving five punishments and since he received five punishments, a show-cause notice dated 10.7.1996 was served on him on 17.7.1996 allegedly enclosing a conduct sheet, which was not there actually and hence he requested the authorities to furnish him the copy of conduct sheet which would disclose the reasons and the punishments inflicted thereon as he was not aware of the imposition of punishments because they have not been communicated to him and unless the same is furnished to him, he might not be able to give any positive explanation to the show-cause notice; that ultimately he submitted his explanation on 26.7.1996 and received the impugned order directing him to report the Unit so as to be discharged w.e.f. 26.3.1997. THE petitioner would further submit that a reading of the impugned order would show that a discharge order has been passed on 4.3.1997 but the same was not communicated to him. THE petitioner would further submit that he was assessed as Super Grade Aircraftsman for the year 1995-96, which is not an ordinary one and it is construed to be an utmost credence in the career of every Aircraftsman. On such pleadings, the petitioner would pray for the relief extracted supra. 5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit a copy of the common order dated 19.9.1997 made in W.P.Nos.12217 of 1996, 7177 and 11181 of 1997 and would submit that in the similar facts and circumstances regarding another Aircraftsman, a learned single Judge of this Court has set aside the order of discharge and would pray to pass similar orders in the present case also. 6. In the said common order dated 19.9.1997, a learned single Judge of this Court having traced all the facts and circumstances of the case has observed: "... in the absence of communicating the said five severe reprimands to the petitioner, the respondents cannot count the same for discharging the petitioner on the basis of such minor punishment, as such discharge amounts to a major punishment." "THE mere mentioning of the five reprimands in the show-cause notice dated 13.9.1996 for the proposed discharge itself cannot be sufficient to satisfy the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the said five reprimands which are termed as minor punishments, are treated as the basis for the discharge of the petitioner which is a major punishment. Even though there is no rule contemplating the communication of such five severe reprimands, when the proposed discharge of the petitioner is made taking notice of the five severe reprimands the respondents are required to serve the same to the petitioner." "That apart, when the appeal under Section 26 of the Air Force act, 1950, is provided, it is implied that the original order of punishment whether minor or major, should be communicated to the delinquent. Otherwise, there is no point in contending that the petitioner has got the right of appeal against the five reprimands. Had the respondents communicated these five severe reprimands which were ultimately counted for the discharge of the petitioner himself, the petitioner could have challenged the same in appropriate forum invoking Section 26 of the Act. THErefore, the mere mentioning of the five reprimands in the show cause notice dated 13.9.96 itself shall not be sufficient to satisfy the principles of natural justice." with such observations, the learned Judge has quashed the discharge proceedings, further giving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies under Section 26 of the Air Force Act, 1950, as against the severe reprimands inflicted on him, if he is so advised. 7. Since in the case in hand also, the petitioner was inflicted with five punishments without communicating him the same which are the basis for slapping an order of discharge on him, thus flouting the well established principles of natural justice, the above order of the learned single Judge of this Court would squarely apply to the facts of the case in hand and hence this Court is inclined to adopt the said order of the learned single Judge and hence the following order: In result, (i) the above Writ Petition succeeds and the same is allowed. (ii) THE order of discharge slapped on the petitioner is quashed. (iii) THE respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as Aircraftsman with all consequential benefits. (iv) THE petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies under Section 26 of the Air Force Act, 1950, as against the five punishments inflicted on him by the authorities, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if he is so advised, in which event, the respondents are also directed to consider the said appeal and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, with due opportunity for parties to be heard, within six weeks thereafter. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.